"Technically you generally do have the right to use that content in another form, unless the terms of the license agreement say you don't."
But I didn't agree to any license. I went to the store, they offered a CD or DVD for sale for a price, I accepted the offer and paid the price and took the disc home. That is the entire agreement. Why should I need a license to listen to or watch the disc I bought? Why should I need a license to rip it to.MP3 or.AVI so I can take it with me more conveniently?
Yes I do think that distributing it over a p2p system would be a violation of copyright, and illegal, and wrong, but what does "license" have to do with anything?
This isn't insightfull. This is a textbook straw-man arguement. You are making a stupid position up, and assigning that position to me, then poking holes in it.
I made no claims as to what Apple is going to do, or what their motivations are. I posted facts. When you buy something from iTMS, you buy whatever Apple says you bought, and they can change it at any time for any reason. Today those terms are pretty generous. But Apple doesn't own the content they sell, so they aren't the only one who has a say in what those terms are.
A cynic would interperate a "change at any time for any reason" clause of an agreement as "this is what the agreement says while you are reading it, but when you close the window it might say something else." So in other words, the agreement gives Apple some rights, but you don't have any. That is all I am claiming.
"Personally, I have ZERO qualms about the licenses on my iTunes music."
It doesn't bother you at all that Apple can change the Usage Rules at any time? It doesn't bother you that Apple can lock you out of the music you purchased at any time for any reason?
I Quote: Do you think that Apple's restrictions are really that ridiculous?"
You are missing some important parts to their TOS. Under 9c:
"Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time."
And later under 13b:"...Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such Products, content or materials under this Agreement. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability."
No, I'm not using iTMS, but if I did, I'd be burning backup, DRM-free, MP3s. (Or Oggs for those of you who are cooler than me)
...because as soon as a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player is available for less than $250 those people are going to buy one. And they are going to buy some HD movies to watch on their new players. And some of them are going to buy their favorite movies again because the DVD version they already own will be inferior.
I forgot the the "less than" symbol would get interpreted by HTML.
Yeah, I don't have HD either. A 34" tube (comparable to the 32" analog that I have) is about $900 and I'd need a new entertainment center to hold it and then Digital HD cable is $55-100 per month (instead of the $9 I pay for basic.) BUT most of the people under 30 that I know have HD. The 46,000 number is totally irrelavent. What we need to know is the total number of subscribers to all the cable- companies' HD programs AND the Dish companies' HD subscribers. Most of these people will watch anything that is in HD. And I can say with certainty that all the people that have paid all that money for HD systems are disappointed that their DVD movies are not in HD. Those people represent pent-up demand, because as soon as a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player is available for There is a unfufilled demand for HD video.
Charisma isn't big enough either. WW is an Amazonian. She should be big, tall, with a big hourglass figure.
Natasha Henstridge comes to mind. She is tall and beautifull and curvy, and she's been doing action on her TV show. However she is probably too old for Joss' target audience.
I don't think any of today's PYT's fit the Amazonian profile. Joss should probably find an unknown for the title role. Good writing can make any competent actor look great.
It was made clear to video games publishers that if they didn't regulate themselves, then congress would have to do something. So the industry came up with this self-regulating, voluntary scheme so that they wouldn't have to deal with a law.
So as it stands now, there is no legal penalty for a store that sells M-rated games to 12 year olds. There is just bad publicity, and the threat of actual laws if the idustry doesn't follow its own rules.
In the linked article, there was another link to the previous article where the same interview questions were asked of a big anti-violent gaming activist lawyer. He said that he sued Best Buy into creating a new policy to card anyone under 21 trying to buy an M-rated game. Now I don't know, but I think he probably didn't have any real chance of winning a suit against Best Buy for not following a voluntary policy. I think they probably just wanted to settle and avoid bad publicity.
By the way, I don't think we need more laws either, but you asked to be corrected if you're wrong, and you are.
You said:"Two, all of these models tend to leave something important out: The sun."
The article said:"It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world."
Yes, that was always a big issue for me too. How could we assume that CO2 and methane levels from human activity are the cause of change when we hadn't even ruled out a change in the source? If we are to believe this article, and this study which hasn't quite been published yet, solar variation has now been eliminated as a potential cause.
Allright, I should have been more specific. The success of the iPod predated the iTunes Online Music Store. I don't think iTunes had any value when it was just an Apple-only interface to the iPod, so I don't think iTunes had anything to do with making the iPod the initial success that it was.
iTunes came out after the iPod was already a success. Yes, I do think that iTunes, and the availablility of iTunes for the PC, are factors in Apple's overall sales, but neither explains the iPod's immediate success.
" When that quote was written NO big companies were getting into portible music, probably afraid of a Music Disk situation."
I suppose we can disagree on what a "big" company is, but there were plenty of MP3 players on the market when the iPod came out. Creative, you know the guys that made all those SoundBlaster cards that were the de facto standard for computer sound seemed to be in a much better position than Apple was to take over that market.
Of course that just makes Apple's success that much more remarkable. It wasn't that Steve Jobs had that fantastic vision of a opportunity no one else saw, it was that Apple had by far the best design and won over the early adopters and marketed the whole thing brilliantly. Anyways I'd say the odds were probably a 100:1 that Apple succeeds in that sideways move into digital music, so faulting Malone for not seeing that one coming isn't fair. If the cards had fallen a little bit differently maybe that sideways move would have been the sale of Apple.
100:1 might be a bit generous actually. The Creative player had more capacity, worked with PCs so there was a much bigger potential customer base, had cheap removable batteries. The iPod was a little bit smaller, had The Wheel, and cost about $100 more. That business model doesn't make any sense. Well, at least it doesn't make any sense until it works.
"The biggest reason the 15-25 male demographic has been the "big" demographic in video games has more to do with the relatively short history of video gaming in general than anything. You're seeing so many 15-25 year-old males because they're the ones who were playing Nintendo and Sega Master System back when video games really were considered toys for little boys--and by and large the only people playing them were little boys. Now that video games are becoming more mainstream--now that they're no longer seen as the exclusive domain of small children and nerds--you're going to see a much broader market for this kind of thing."
I too disagree with this. I grew up with and Atari 2600, and then a Commodore 64, I have a Playstation and a gaming PC. I'm a gamer. I seriously considered buying a Gameboy about 5 years ago, but after fiddling with one at an in-store display, I decided it was a kid's toy and I've never bought a portable.
This PSP merits some consideration by me, but I'm a little turned off that all my old Playstation games won't play in it.
Re:Offline games require online reporting = BOGUS
on
Steam Users Steamed
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Many people have already pointed out that you only have to connect to Steam once to check authorization, and after that you can play single-player in offline mode all you want.
What I'd like to add is an explanation for why Valve created Steam at all. It wasn't just to get more "control" and defeat hackers and pirates. Steam could allow Valve to do without a publisher, as they could do all their distribution through Steam and skip the boxes on the shelves entirely. Think of not being beholden to Sierra or EA. IMHO, Valve chickened out and released HL2 both through stores and through Steam (which maybe makes sense IF enough customers are only on dial-up) which meant that people who bought the box have to have the disc AND all the Steam stuff, and it feels like a big hassle to them. If Valve had only distributed through Steam, the authentication would be transparent and everyone would think they were part of this great new paradigm and they were sticking it to "the man" at the evil publishing house and the crappy retail outfits. People would say: "Isn't it great how I don't have to keep track of a CD and I can go re-download all the old games I paid for 5 years ago to as many computers as I want to without any hassle. And they give me free content later as it becomes available without paying for an expansion pack."
Where can I buy one of these wonderfull new cameras that doesn't always work? We should all be lining up now and demanding HP bring them to market quicker so I can have LESS.
Even without MS and Apple, these guys may still win IF the "content producers" get behind the new format. Ultimately, it WILL be up to the customers to choose if they want it or not, but if all the new discs you want come in this super-cool new format that matches your car stereo, your home stereo, your sony laptop, your playstation, and other hardware, then Microsoft will probably "embrace and extend" it anyways.
"There's nothing illegal or unethical about what's EA's doing; it's just good business for them...It's downright predatory."
Thats a pretty good illustration of one of the dangers of "free market" capitalism: It needs good competition to remain healthy, and if there is nothing to ensure that it actually stays free market then those with the means will erect barriers to competition, and "the market" may not correct it. Nevermind that predatory business practices are technically illegal, I understand that they are not illegal in a way that the courts will do anything about it. But the analyst is so used to the system that he doesn't even see anything unethical about it.
Pretty much every other comment here seems to think the RIAA or Hollywood has something to do with this, but they don't. This is between Marvel and Stan Lee. IF Marvel has a percentage of the Movie Gross, THEN Stan gets 10% of that. But Marvel may have sold the movie right for a flat fee for all we know.
Blizzard won't have to sue anyone. The data is on their servers, they just delete it or close the account of the offender permanently. If users try to sue them, Blizzard will just show that they were following the mutually agreeed upon contract to the letter. The user may not have seen the Terms Of Service before they bought the box on the shelf, but they sure did see the TOS before they paid their subscription.
You're missing my point entirely. I believe that EA is paying ESPN more for an exclusive license than ESPN would have received from EA+SEGA+other parties for non-exclusive licensing. I'm not contesting that the EA deal makes sense for ESPN on a balance sheet or a revenue model.
My issue is that the promotional value of video games isn't properly valued on a balance sheet. Corporations spend millions of dollars on advertising to try and improve their image and it isn't as effective as video games. No advertising reaches that critical 12-25 demographic the way that video games do. To put this completely into the hands of EA, who isn't even going to put the ESPN name on the front of the game box is a mistake in my opinion.
ESPN has some rights to the Wold Series of Poker, but the one WSOP computer game I could find didn't seem to have anything to do with ESPN. The World Poker Tour is not affiliated with the WSOP and the WPT has their own video game.
The WPT game is one of those "console in the controller" type things where you don't need any other hardware except a TV.
Perhaps ESPN has since aquired the video game rights for the WSOP?
I agree. By itself this isn't a big deal. The ESPN name adds a little bit of credibility, and the ESPN announcer voices add a bit of professionalism to the image, but there is no real substance lost. However, the NFL's decision to sell exclusive rights is a much bigger deal, and when you combine that with ESPN's decision, its a pretty nasty one-two punch to Sega.
It might be the right decision for ESPN, but I really think it was a bad move by the NFL. Yes, it is money in the bank now for the NFL, but I think in the long term it works against them. A vibrant, competitive video game market for NFL licensed games is a HUGE promotion/marketing tool for the NFL. People playing the games get a lot more involved in the players and teams that people who just watch it on TV sometimes. I'll admit I never watched any football until I played Madden on the playstation and learned about the teams and the players and how the play calling influenced the game. I think that video games and fantasy leagues provide the kind of interaction that makes watching football exciting in a way that NO amount of regular advertising and promotion can do at any price. Plus, video games reach teens when they are impressionable and can make them NFL fans for life. Putting all their eggs in the EA basket might be a decision they come to regret.
I guess some of that applies to ESPN too. By taking the deal from EA they are cutting them selves off from Sega and other companies that might be willing to pay for the priviledge of promoting ESPN.
" Education has been found to be less desirable than motivation and work ethic.
Education has now become accepted as being acquired through experience and higher learning - not just the next step/next grade level of yesteryear."
I think that the article is pretty weak for taking two data points (1980 and 2001) and forming ANY conclusions. For example, I'm sure they aren't even the same 100 companies, so how does that effect the data. Are there fewer East Coast companies in the Top 100 in 2001? With the sample size, is a 4% change even statistically significant?
Your explanation as to WHY appears to have even less data to back it up.
And for the record, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
Roundup completely breaks down into Nitrogen (fertilizer) in a few days.
Yes I wouldn't want to breathe it or for you to pour it directly into my well or anything, but RoundUp isn't like many other herbicides and pesticides that break down slowly and hang around in the environment for long periods of time. Monstanto may be evil, but not because Roundup is some insidious poison that builds up over years and seeps into the groundwater or gets concentrated into the milk the children drink. Roundup is about as safe as chemicals get.
Slashdot Mirror
"Technically you generally do have the right to use that content in another form, unless the terms of the license agreement say you don't."
.MP3 or .AVI so I can take it with me more conveniently?
But I didn't agree to any license. I went to the store, they offered a CD or DVD for sale for a price, I accepted the offer and paid the price and took the disc home. That is the entire agreement. Why should I need a license to listen to or watch the disc I bought? Why should I need a license to rip it to
Yes I do think that distributing it over a p2p system would be a violation of copyright, and illegal, and wrong, but what does "license" have to do with anything?
This isn't insightfull. This is a textbook straw-man arguement. You are making a stupid position up, and assigning that position to me, then poking holes in it.
I made no claims as to what Apple is going to do, or what their motivations are. I posted facts. When you buy something from iTMS, you buy whatever Apple says you bought, and they can change it at any time for any reason. Today those terms are pretty generous. But Apple doesn't own the content they sell, so they aren't the only one who has a say in what those terms are.
A cynic would interperate a "change at any time for any reason" clause of an agreement as "this is what the agreement says while you are reading it, but when you close the window it might say something else." So in other words, the agreement gives Apple some rights, but you don't have any. That is all I am claiming.
"Personally, I have ZERO qualms about the licenses on my iTunes music."
It doesn't bother you at all that Apple can change the Usage Rules at any time? It doesn't bother you that Apple can lock you out of the music you purchased at any time for any reason?
I Quote: Do you think that Apple's restrictions are really that ridiculous?"
You are missing some important parts to their TOS. Under 9c:
"Apple reserves the right to modify the Usage Rules at any time."
And later under 13b:"...Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice. In no event will Apple be liable for the removal of or disabling of access to any such Products, content or materials under this Agreement. Apple may also impose limits on the use of or access to certain features or portions of the Service, in any case and without notice or liability."
No, I'm not using iTMS, but if I did, I'd be burning backup, DRM-free, MP3s. (Or Oggs for those of you who are cooler than me)
That is what I get for not previewing.
...because as soon as a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player is available for less than $250 those people are going to buy one. And they are going to buy some HD movies to watch on their new players. And some of them are going to buy their favorite movies again because the DVD version they already own will be inferior.
I forgot the the "less than" symbol would get interpreted by HTML.
Yeah, I don't have HD either. A 34" tube (comparable to the 32" analog that I have) is about $900 and I'd need a new entertainment center to hold it and then Digital HD cable is $55-100 per month (instead of the $9 I pay for basic.) BUT most of the people under 30 that I know have HD. The 46,000 number is totally irrelavent. What we need to know is the total number of subscribers to all the cable- companies' HD programs AND the Dish companies' HD subscribers. Most of these people will watch anything that is in HD. And I can say with certainty that all the people that have paid all that money for HD systems are disappointed that their DVD movies are not in HD. Those people represent pent-up demand, because as soon as a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player is available for
There is a unfufilled demand for HD video.
Charisma isn't big enough either. WW is an Amazonian. She should be big, tall, with a big hourglass figure. Natasha Henstridge comes to mind. She is tall and beautifull and curvy, and she's been doing action on her TV show. However she is probably too old for Joss' target audience. I don't think any of today's PYT's fit the Amazonian profile. Joss should probably find an unknown for the title role. Good writing can make any competent actor look great.
It was made clear to video games publishers that if they didn't regulate themselves, then congress would have to do something. So the industry came up with this self-regulating, voluntary scheme so that they wouldn't have to deal with a law.
So as it stands now, there is no legal penalty for a store that sells M-rated games to 12 year olds. There is just bad publicity, and the threat of actual laws if the idustry doesn't follow its own rules.
In the linked article, there was another link to the previous article where the same interview questions were asked of a big anti-violent gaming activist lawyer. He said that he sued Best Buy into creating a new policy to card anyone under 21 trying to buy an M-rated game. Now I don't know, but I think he probably didn't have any real chance of winning a suit against Best Buy for not following a voluntary policy. I think they probably just wanted to settle and avoid bad publicity.
By the way, I don't think we need more laws either, but you asked to be corrected if you're wrong, and you are.
You said:"Two, all of these models tend to leave something important out: The sun."
The article said:"It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world."
Yes, that was always a big issue for me too. How could we assume that CO2 and methane levels from human activity are the cause of change when we hadn't even ruled out a change in the source? If we are to believe this article, and this study which hasn't quite been published yet, solar variation has now been eliminated as a potential cause.
Allright, I should have been more specific. The success of the iPod predated the iTunes Online Music Store. I don't think iTunes had any value when it was just an Apple-only interface to the iPod, so I don't think iTunes had anything to do with making the iPod the initial success that it was.
iTunes came out after the iPod was already a success. Yes, I do think that iTunes, and the availablility of iTunes for the PC, are factors in Apple's overall sales, but neither explains the iPod's immediate success.
" When that quote was written NO big companies were getting into portible music, probably afraid of a Music Disk situation."
I suppose we can disagree on what a "big" company is, but there were plenty of MP3 players on the market when the iPod came out. Creative, you know the guys that made all those SoundBlaster cards that were the de facto standard for computer sound seemed to be in a much better position than Apple was to take over that market.
Of course that just makes Apple's success that much more remarkable. It wasn't that Steve Jobs had that fantastic vision of a opportunity no one else saw, it was that Apple had by far the best design and won over the early adopters and marketed the whole thing brilliantly. Anyways I'd say the odds were probably a 100:1 that Apple succeeds in that sideways move into digital music, so faulting Malone for not seeing that one coming isn't fair. If the cards had fallen a little bit differently maybe that sideways move would have been the sale of Apple.
100:1 might be a bit generous actually. The Creative player had more capacity, worked with PCs so there was a much bigger potential customer base, had cheap removable batteries. The iPod was a little bit smaller, had The Wheel, and cost about $100 more. That business model doesn't make any sense. Well, at least it doesn't make any sense until it works.
"The biggest reason the 15-25 male demographic has been the "big" demographic in video games has more to do with the relatively short history of video gaming in general than anything. You're seeing so many 15-25 year-old males because they're the ones who were playing Nintendo and Sega Master System back when video games really were considered toys for little boys--and by and large the only people playing them were little boys. Now that video games are becoming more mainstream--now that they're no longer seen as the exclusive domain of small children and nerds--you're going to see a much broader market for this kind of thing."
I too disagree with this. I grew up with and Atari 2600, and then a Commodore 64, I have a Playstation and a gaming PC. I'm a gamer. I seriously considered buying a Gameboy about 5 years ago, but after fiddling with one at an in-store display, I decided it was a kid's toy and I've never bought a portable.
This PSP merits some consideration by me, but I'm a little turned off that all my old Playstation games won't play in it.
Many people have already pointed out that you only have to connect to Steam once to check authorization, and after that you can play single-player in offline mode all you want.
What I'd like to add is an explanation for why Valve created Steam at all. It wasn't just to get more "control" and defeat hackers and pirates. Steam could allow Valve to do without a publisher, as they could do all their distribution through Steam and skip the boxes on the shelves entirely. Think of not being beholden to Sierra or EA. IMHO, Valve chickened out and released HL2 both through stores and through Steam (which maybe makes sense IF enough customers are only on dial-up) which meant that people who bought the box have to have the disc AND all the Steam stuff, and it feels like a big hassle to them. If Valve had only distributed through Steam, the authentication would be transparent and everyone would think they were part of this great new paradigm and they were sticking it to "the man" at the evil publishing house and the crappy retail outfits. People would say: "Isn't it great how I don't have to keep track of a CD and I can go re-download all the old games I paid for 5 years ago to as many computers as I want to without any hassle. And they give me free content later as it becomes available without paying for an expansion pack."
Where can I buy one of these wonderfull new cameras that doesn't always work? We should all be lining up now and demanding HP bring them to market quicker so I can have LESS.
Even without MS and Apple, these guys may still win IF the "content producers" get behind the new format. Ultimately, it WILL be up to the customers to choose if they want it or not, but if all the new discs you want come in this super-cool new format that matches your car stereo, your home stereo, your sony laptop, your playstation, and other hardware, then Microsoft will probably "embrace and extend" it anyways.
"There's nothing illegal or unethical about what's EA's doing; it's just good business for them...It's downright predatory."
Thats a pretty good illustration of one of the dangers of "free market" capitalism: It needs good competition to remain healthy, and if there is nothing to ensure that it actually stays free market then those with the means will erect barriers to competition, and "the market" may not correct it. Nevermind that predatory business practices are technically illegal, I understand that they are not illegal in a way that the courts will do anything about it. But the analyst is so used to the system that he doesn't even see anything unethical about it.
Pretty much every other comment here seems to think the RIAA or Hollywood has something to do with this, but they don't. This is between Marvel and Stan Lee. IF Marvel has a percentage of the Movie Gross, THEN Stan gets 10% of that. But Marvel may have sold the movie right for a flat fee for all we know.
Blizzard won't have to sue anyone. The data is on their servers, they just delete it or close the account of the offender permanently. If users try to sue them, Blizzard will just show that they were following the mutually agreeed upon contract to the letter. The user may not have seen the Terms Of Service before they bought the box on the shelf, but they sure did see the TOS before they paid their subscription.
You're missing my point entirely. I believe that EA is paying ESPN more for an exclusive license than ESPN would have received from EA+SEGA+other parties for non-exclusive licensing. I'm not contesting that the EA deal makes sense for ESPN on a balance sheet or a revenue model.
My issue is that the promotional value of video games isn't properly valued on a balance sheet. Corporations spend millions of dollars on advertising to try and improve their image and it isn't as effective as video games. No advertising reaches that critical 12-25 demographic the way that video games do. To put this completely into the hands of EA, who isn't even going to put the ESPN name on the front of the game box is a mistake in my opinion.
ESPN has some rights to the Wold Series of Poker, but the one WSOP computer game I could find didn't seem to have anything to do with ESPN. The World Poker Tour is not affiliated with the WSOP and the WPT has their own video game.
The WPT game is one of those "console in the controller" type things where you don't need any other hardware except a TV.
Perhaps ESPN has since aquired the video game rights for the WSOP?
I agree. By itself this isn't a big deal. The ESPN name adds a little bit of credibility, and the ESPN announcer voices add a bit of professionalism to the image, but there is no real substance lost. However, the NFL's decision to sell exclusive rights is a much bigger deal, and when you combine that with ESPN's decision, its a pretty nasty one-two punch to Sega.
It might be the right decision for ESPN, but I really think it was a bad move by the NFL. Yes, it is money in the bank now for the NFL, but I think in the long term it works against them. A vibrant, competitive video game market for NFL licensed games is a HUGE promotion/marketing tool for the NFL. People playing the games get a lot more involved in the players and teams that people who just watch it on TV sometimes. I'll admit I never watched any football until I played Madden on the playstation and learned about the teams and the players and how the play calling influenced the game. I think that video games and fantasy leagues provide the kind of interaction that makes watching football exciting in a way that NO amount of regular advertising and promotion can do at any price. Plus, video games reach teens when they are impressionable and can make them NFL fans for life. Putting all their eggs in the EA basket might be a decision they come to regret.
I guess some of that applies to ESPN too. By taking the deal from EA they are cutting them selves off from Sega and other companies that might be willing to pay for the priviledge of promoting ESPN.
"I'm guessing here based on my personal experience"
The plural of anecdote is not data.
" Education has been found to be less desirable than motivation and work ethic.
Education has now become accepted as being acquired through experience and higher learning - not just the next step/next grade level of yesteryear."
I think that the article is pretty weak for taking two data points (1980 and 2001) and forming ANY conclusions. For example, I'm sure they aren't even the same 100 companies, so how does that effect the data. Are there fewer East Coast companies in the Top 100 in 2001? With the sample size, is a 4% change even statistically significant?
Your explanation as to WHY appears to have even less data to back it up.
And for the record, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
Roundup completely breaks down into Nitrogen (fertilizer) in a few days.
Yes I wouldn't want to breathe it or for you to pour it directly into my well or anything, but RoundUp isn't like many other herbicides and pesticides that break down slowly and hang around in the environment for long periods of time. Monstanto may be evil, but not because Roundup is some insidious poison that builds up over years and seeps into the groundwater or gets concentrated into the milk the children drink. Roundup is about as safe as chemicals get.